advertisement
Video Producer: Shohini Bose
Video Editor: Purnendu Pritam
Cameraperson: Abhishek Ranjan
Yeh Jo India Hai Na... yahan par we are all talking about Arnab Goswami. But saath mein, let’s also talk about sedition and jingoism, hate speech and freedom of expression, newsroom lynchings and media freedom. Also, about how our law courts respond when confronted with some of these crucial issues.
First, here’s what Arnab Goswami said after returning to his newsroom soon after he got bail:
But in the courtroom of his own TV studio, he has labelled several fellow Indians as terrorists, abused them and shamed them repeatedly – with zero evidence! Does that make Maharashtra Police’s action right? No, it smacks of politics, and the Supreme Court was right in granting Arnab bail. But...
And while we don’t get fairness from Arnab’s biased, partisan courtroom, surely we can expect that from our nation’s law courts!
Click on the player for the full podcast.
Take a look at this cartoon by Manjul. It shows our courts letting one crow – Arnab – fly free, while many others birds – other individuals, remain jailed.
Speaking to The Quint, Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nandy asked bluntly:
She further asked why our courts were inconsistent when it came to defending civil liberties. Nundy and others have pointed out the case of Sudha Bharadwaj, human rights activist and Bhima Koregaon case accused.
In September 2020, the Supreme Court refused to consider Bharadwaj’s interim bail plea, despite the fact that even after two years in jail,
Instead, the Supreme Court told her that she had a bail plea pending at the Bombay High Court, and asked her to go there. But then, Arnab Goswami, too, had a bail plea pending at the Alibaug Sessions Court, but the SC heard his plea and granted him bail.
While granting Arnab bail, Supreme Court Justice DY Chandrachud said:
Very rightly said, but what senior Supreme Court lawyers, like Dushyant Dave – who is also the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, are asking of the apex court is this:
Look at the case of Pinjra Tod activist Devangana Kalita. The Delhi High Court granted her bail in a North-East Delhi violence case, in which she had been charged with:
The court said:
But in another case, Devangana faces the same charges under the UAPA. Since the police does not have to show any evidence under the UAPA, she has NOT been granted bail. So, the same judicial system has granted her bail and refused her bail for the same charge!
In the more recent case of journalist Siddique Kappan, too, bail seems unlikely. Why again, the UAPA. He was arrested on charges of sedition under the UAPA on 5 October 2020, while heading with three others to cover the Hathras gang rape case.
Is the evidence there? We don’t know.
Just like the case of Devangana Kalita, could it be that there isn’t any here? Yes.
But, is the police obliged to share evidence? No.
Why? Because of the UAPA.
Over 40 days in jail and counting...could this also be a travesty of justice, worthy of the Supreme Court’s intervention? Yes!
Our law courts upheld the liberty of Arnab, we hope they do the same for Siddique as well.
Lastly, we heard the Supreme Court suggest that if we differ with Arnab in ideology, we needn’t watch his channel. That’s right.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)